Running Head: REFERENCE PRACTICE
1
Reference Practice
The Stroop effect (Stroop, 1935) parenthetical, one work, one author is one of the best-known
effects in cognitive psychology. In his extensive review, MacLeod (1991) in text, one work, one author
counted more than 700 articles dealing with this effect.
There is a large body of evidence, however, suggesting that few processes, if any, are entirely
independent of attentional control (e.g., Logan, 1980). Besner, Stolz, and Boutilier (1997), one work,
multiple authors, in text, use “and” spelled out for example, used a modification of the Stroop task in
which only a single letter of the incongruent words was coloured.
Preliminary evidence that the lexical-semantic level can be disabled and/or overridden by sociocontextual factors or factors not restricted to the local context of the task can be found in MacKinnon,
Geiselman, and Woodward (1985). use names in author order These authors used the standard vocal
version of the Stroop task and tested the influence of interpersonal competition on the Stroop effect.
MacKinnon et al. (1985) subsequent citation in text, three authors concluded that subjects can reduce
Stroop interference when their effort is focused in that direction.
Several arguments, however, make this motivational explanation not very plausible. First of all,
it is well-known that “a skilled reader’s intent to not read the colour words is not enough to prevent
lexical-semantic activation in the Stroop task” (Reisberg, 1997, p. 47). direct quote requires page
number APA page 170 Second, recent results (Huguet, Monteil, & Dumas, 1999; Huguet, Dumas, &
Monteil, 2004 multiple works by multiple authors; use & inside parentheses) suggest that the presence
of a desired reward (and related positive effect on self-reports of effort) did not play a key role in
MacKinnon et al.’s findings. In a series of three studies, Chajut and Algom (2003) also concluded that
the Stroop effect remains unchanged under heightened motivation but decreases under heightened
stress (induced via non-social stressors such as intense noise). There is indeed ample evidence today
that heightened level of arousal or stress impairs the attentional apparatus, with fewer resources
available for more peripheral or less relevant information (Baron, 1985).
Source
Title
Author(s)
Publication
Publication Info
A
Studies of Interference in
Serial-verbal Reaction
John R. Stroop
Journal of
Experimental
Psychology
1935, Volume 18,
pages 643-662
B
Half a Century of Research
on the Stroop Effect: An
integrative review
Charles M.
MacLeod
Psychological
Bulletin
1991, Volume
109, issue 5,
pages 163 to 203
C
Attention and automaticity George D. Logan Cognitive
in Stroop and priming tasks:
Psychology
Theory and Data
1980, Volume 12,
pages 523-553
D
The Stroop Effect and the
Myth of Automaticity
David Besner,
Technical Report
John A. Stolz, and A37
Catherine
Boutilier
1997, University
of Ohio
Department of
Psychology
E
The effects of effort on
Stroop interference
Deborah P
MacKinnon,
Robert E.
Geiselman, and
Jane Anne
Woodward
Paper presented at 1985, Boston
the Modern
Massachusetts
Linguistics
Association
convention
F
Cognition: Exploring the
Science of the Mind
Donald Reisberg
Book
G
Social Presence Effects in
the Stroop Task
Phillipe Huguet, Perception on the
Jeanne-Marie
Web
Monteil, and
Françoise Dumas
H
Competing for a Desired
Reward in the Stroop Task
Phillipe Huguet, Canadian Journal 2004, Volume 58,
Françoise Dumas, of Experimental pages 153-167
& Jeanne-Marie Psychology
Monteil
I
Selective Attention
Improves under Stress
Eric Chajut and
Diane Algom
Journal of
Personality and
Social
1997, Norton,
New York, page
47
Internet
Newsletter, 1999,
http://perception.
fr/news_99_03.
html
2003, Vol. 85,
page 231-248
DOI:
Source
J
Title
Distraction-conflict theory:
Progress and problems
Author(s)
Reginald S.
Baron
Publication
Publication Info
Psychology
10.1037/00223514.85.2.231
Advances in
Experimental
Social
Psychology
Book edited by
Leo Berkowitz,
Academic Press,
New York, pp. 140. 1985
References
Baron, R. S. (1985). Distraction-conflict theory: Progress and problems. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (pp.1-40). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Besner, D., Stolz, J. A., & Boutilier, C. (1997). The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity
(Technical Report A37). Department of Psychology, University of Ohio.
Chajut, E., & Algom, D. (2003). Selective attention improves under stress. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85, 231-248. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.231
Huguet, P., Dumas, F., & Monteil, J.-M. (2004). Competing for a desired reward in the Stroop task.
Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 153-167.
Huguet, P., Monteil, J.-M., & Dumas, F. (1999). Social presence effects in the Stroop task. Perception
on the Web. Retrieved from http:/perception.fr/news_99_03.html
Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data.
Cognitive Psychology, 12, 523-553.
MacKinnon, D. P., Geiselman, R. E., & Woodward, J. A. (1985). The effects of effort on Stroop
interference. Paper presented at the Modern Linguistics Association convention, Boston, MA.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.
Psychological Bulletin, 109(5), 163-203.
Reisberg, D. (1997). Cognition: Exploring the science of the mind. New York, NY: Norton.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial-verbal reaction. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 18, 643-662.